Such “charms” have seduced our youth since the 1960s! We are now working with Liberty Counsel and a nationwide network of parents, legislators and other leaders to repeal these child abuse “charms” that began in Illinois in 1962, called “obscenity exemptions.”

These exemptions permit administrators, teachers and librarians to give children material normally classified as “harmful to minors” in 41 states – obscene material, distribution of which in any other setting would be considered child sex abuse. An executive order by President Trump and/or similar action by national leaders would help to spotlight massive child sexual exploitation in our public, private and parochial schools occurring right under our taxpaying noses.

Kindergarten through 12th grade schools distributing obscenity is among the most pressing children’s public policy issue we face. The practice guarantees consumers for early, mass pornography and subsequent abortion, along with rampant STDs, sex crimes, child sex trafficking and now epidemic infant/child pornography.

How long has this been going on? At least since 1974 with Planned Parenthood pamphlets like “You’ve Changed the Combination.” The authors told children to have sex with “friends” while equating virginity with prostitution:

Do you want a warm body? Buy one. That’s right. There are women who have freely chosen that business, buy one … Do you want a virgin to marry. Buy one. There are girls in that business too. Marriage is the price you’ll pay, and you’ll get the virgin. Very Temporarily.

“It’s Perfectly Normal” (1994) has been published widely for decades, grooming child predators of every stripe. The book would be iIllegal for children but for the “obscenity exemptions,” which allow both lies and nude cartoons of children masturbating, among other things, as “sex education.”

“Obscenity exemptions” force children in their classrooms to accept confusing, arousing, hetero and LGBTQ sexual materials. It is critical to our children’s well-being to expose these sexual falsehoods and to uncover how this coup was strategically implemented since the 1960s.

The idea behind “obscenity exemptions,” to subject children – who can never give consent – to “indecent” text, images, shows, or lectures under color of “education,” was rejected by the Supreme Court in Fox v. FCC in 2009.

In FCC, the Court rejected an argument to exempt “fleeting expletives” in the media. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that “fleeting expletives” are harmful to children. Even fleeting F-words, he wrote, causes some children to imitate what they hear and see:

To predict that complete immunity for fleeting expletives, ardently desired by broadcasters, will lead to a substantial increase in fleeting expletives seems to us an exercise in logic rather than clairvoyance.

One cannot demand a multi-year controlled study, in which some children are intentionally exposed to indecent broadcasts (and insulated from all other indecency), and others are shielded from all indecency.

Here it suffices to know that children mimic the behavior they observe – or at least the behavior that is presented to them as normal and appropriate. Programming replete with one-word indecent expletives will tend to produce children who use (at least) one-word indecent expletives. Congress has made the determination that indecent material is harmful to children. …

Federal and state laws all prohibit to children materials deemed “harmful to minors,” e.g.:

Harmful materials for minors include any communication consisting of nudity, sex or excretion that (i) appeals to the prurient interest of minors, (ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, (iii) and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

However, 41 of our states covertly established “obscenity exemptions” under the color of “education,” “science,” “art” or “government” to avoid legal prosecution. This has permitted obscene images, words and performances to slither into schools, first as “sex education,” and now in all areas of K-12 education.

This includes “recommended” library books such as “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist,” which lists, not fleetingly, 275 F-words and their variations in 183 pages. Typical suggestions also include novels, “how-to” books, etc., featuring sadism, bestiality, GLBTQ stimuli, “sex toys,” etc. It is argued that schoolroom sex stimuli aide the sex industry and their political lobbyists everywhere.

Exemptions protect scores of offenses, such as a “drag queen” PTA president “surprise” at an elementary school talent show:

Kiddie choirs. Children’s piano recitals. And a full-on, erotic drag show complete with gyrations, tongue gymnastics and a flashed G-string. Families at a Manhattan public school talent show got an unexpected lesson in human sexuality when a grown man took the stage in a black, sequined dress and flaming red wig and performed a raunchy drag number where he grinded the stage and spread his legs.

These exemptions allow third-party vendors, such as EBSCO, to plant obscene material in “research” sites for children using online school library resources. A Colorado parent discovered that her daughter’s login information allowed access on the “research” portal to obscene stories and advertisements.

We urge you to join in our national effort to expose this 40-year child sex abuse covert coup called “Obscenity Exemptions’ K-12.” Contact Mary McAlister, Esq., at Liberty Counsel, “mary@lc.org.

David Rockefeller’s recentl death at age 101 merits universal attention. The founder of Standard Oil and at one time the world’s richest billionaire, establishment media celebrates his largess through philanthropic efforts of his family’s Rockefeller Foundation.

Like similar foundations run by his contemporaries, Bill Gates and George Soros, Rockefeller’s Foundation has always given financial support to “social justice” causes they themselves agree with, action some critics describe as financing government-controlled social change.

The Rockefeller Foundation has been a leader in social change since the early 1900s and pioneered many causes now furthered by Gates and Soros. The dark side of the legacy of the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rockefeller fortune is something that is not likely to be included in media accolades of David Rockefeller’s life.

Those of us whose memories predate World War II remember how Rockefeller’s Standard Oil helped Hitler’s Third Reich before and during that war. Outspoken Sen. Harry Truman, D-Mo., described the Rockefeller involvement as treason. The Chicago Tribune reported:

“Standard Oil could be scarcely regarded as an ‘American’ business … it was a hostile and dangerous agency of the enemy,’ Senate Committee Chairman Truman left the hearings snorting. ‘I think this approaches treason. … Even after we were in the war, Standard Oil of New Jersey was putting forth every effort of which it was capable to protect the control of the German government over vital war material. As Patrick Henry said: “‘If that is treason then make the most of it!” Yes, it is treason. You cannot translate it any other way.'”

The Rockefeller Foundation also gave financial aid to Germany’s Eugenics programs and later America’s two most important eugenic sexual revolutionaries: the father of the sexual revolution, Dr. Alfred Kinsey of Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute, and Margaret Sanger, the founder of abortion-on-demand and population-control agent Planned Parenthood.

In fact, PP acknowledged the Rockefeller family’s contribution to its population-control efforts by bestowing the Margaret Sanger award on David’s brother John D. Rockefeller III in 1967.

The third part of this unholy trinity of sexual revolution was Playboy’s Hugh Hefner. Hefner eagerly financed both the Kinsey Institute and Planned Parenthood in his effort as to promote mass promiscuity, which created the need for Planned Parenthood’s birth control and abortion services.

The Rockefeller Foundation was a major funding source for pedophile Kinsey. In his 1948 book, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” Kinsey naturally claimed proof that children are sexual from birth and unharmed by sex with adults. He even showed his “proof” on five tables timing the alleged “orgasms” from serial sexual abuse and rapes of children as young as 2 months old. (The babies and children screamed, fainted and/or convulsed during the abuse; Kinsey, an S&M bi-homosexual pedophile, called these reactions “orgasms.”)

Buoyed by a Rockefeller Foundation financed media tsunami and a respected scientific publisher, Kinsey’s child-rape “data” were accepted as “scientific” evidence of the “true sex lives” American adults and children. Kinsey’s “fake science” was and is today taught as factual data in law and in “higher” education.

By 1947 Kinsey’s project was allotted $40,000 annually in RF support. At their peak Kinsey’s grants amounted to half of all RF contributions to the NRC Committee. These grants helped to fund a team of assistants who conducted, collected and analyzed thousands of interviews with men and women meant to represent a social and economic cross-section of America. Kinsey used these interviews to build a set of case histories that provided a statistical basis from which to draw conclusions about the sexual experiences of Americans.

In January 2009, Playboy listed the most influential men and women in sex from the past 55 years. No. 1? RF favorite, Al Kinsey.

Without the Rockefeller Foundation, Kinsey could not have become the household name that birthed the sexual revolution. Without Kinsey’s launching of the sexual revolution and Hefner’s success as Kinsey’s pamphleteer, Planned Parenthood would not be the multi-billion dollar abortion and birth control giant now benefiting from Rockefeller’s successors.

In 1915, the year that David Rockefeller was born, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis testified about the dangers that could arise from powerful philanthropic organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation and their controlling special-interest influence masked as benevolence:

Rockefeller Foundation’s sponsorship of Kinsey’s child rape-based sexual freedom agenda and its domino effect on law, society and culture, our modern child porno-criminal, pedophile and trafficking epidemics, and the eugenics-based work of Planned Parenthood, which justifies killing millions of unborn children, has certainly proven the truth of Justice Brandeis predictions.

David Rockefeller’s contribution to this bloody, destructive legacy must never be forgotten.

]]>http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/rockefellers-legacy-enabling-sexual-revolution/feed/0Penn State scandal: When child sex abuse is 'harmless'http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/penn-state-scandal-when-child-sex-abuse-is-harmless/
http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/penn-state-scandal-when-child-sex-abuse-is-harmless/#respondFri, 17 Mar 2017 23:32:16 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=4235841On Monday, March 20, 2017, Graham Spanier, past president of Penn State University, is scheduled to go to trial on charges of criminal child endangerment and conspiracy related to former football coach Jerry Sandusky’s rapes of little boys. At issue is whether Spanier, who was president of Penn State at the time, failed to investigate or covered up Sandusky’s crimes.

Unfortunately, there has been of late a spate of highly educated authorities, from the Pentagon to other government workers, teachers, doctors, etc., who have been arrested and even convicted for child sexual abuse, including possession of child pornography. Dr. Lori Handrahan’s publication of “Professors & Staff Arrested for Trading in Child Rape,” has sparked public outrage as the report has been shared more than 390,000 times in a few weeks. People are asking, how is this happening?

Spanier is academia sexual liberalism writ large

In fact, Spanier’s story exemplifies the consequences of sexual liberalism in academia. During his 16 years at Penn State, Spanier oversaw a number of questionable sexually charged activities. For example, Spanier apparently had no problem with Patrick Califia-Rice, a transgender sadomasochism and pedophilia advocate who keynoted a speech at Penn State in 2002. The president likewise supported an on-campus Sex Faire sporting fun for all such as “orgasm bingo” and “the tent of consent.” When asked if the fair was morally wrong, Spanier said, “It depends on what your definition of immoral is.” Given his moral confusion, would reports of Sandusky’s child rapes have elicited concern?

That was one of the questions I was asked to answer in 2014, when an investigator for Pennsylvania’s attorney general asked me to study Spainer’s scientific writings to determine whether there was a factual trail pointing to his not taking child sexual abuse allegations seriously.

My investigation first confirmed that Dr. Spanier held himself out as a sexuality expert. His 1973 doctoral dissertation was titled “Sexual Socialization.” It focused on adult sex with small children. His most important foundational work – his Ph.D. thesis – opens the door to his pedagogical philosophy, which is currently shared by a multitude of similarly educated and credentialed men and women.

From page 3 of Spanier’s dissertation:

To study this relationship, data collected by the Institute for Sex Research will be used. … To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study that attempts to investigate empirically how the sexual socializing experiences of childhood and adolescence influence the nature and extent of subsequent sexual behavior during high school and college.

… before age 12 or 13, the [sex assaults] experiences in question would not be interpreted as sexual. … [S]exual assault before ages 12 or 13 was not related to sexual behavior …. whereas sexual assault after ages 12 or 13 was. … [A] child’s sex education, sex knowledge, sexual values, and sexual behavior from adolescence onward will not be influenced by childhood [sex abuse] experiences since as a child he or she is not capable of interpreting sexual information and experiences in the same way an adult would. (:373)

It is likely that Spanier would not “label” Sandusky’s rapes as deviant, but rather as simple sex socialization of boys. That is illustrated further in a later article in which he found sex acts “deviant” only if we “labeled” them so. The observation below from his paper on one type of sexual deviance, “mate swapping,” could apply equally to child sex abuse.

We choose to view deviant behavior simply as behavior that some value and others consider wrong. An individual’s behavior becomes deviant only when others define it as deviant. Much of an individual’s behavior can be viewed as a response to this “labeling.” (:145)

According to that logic, Sandusky’s violent oral and anal sodomy of 10- and 11-year-old boys would not be viewed as “deviant” in and of itself.

Shortly after receiving his Ph.D., Spanier landed a Penn State professorship in 1977 and later served as vice provost at State University of New York at Stony Brook, provost at Oregon State University and chancellor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in 1991.

Spanier is representative of almost three generations of leaders who have embraced the mantra of Kinsey (a sadomasochistic, pornographic producing, pedophile professor), that “children are sexual from birth and unharmed by sex with adults.” Between justification by “science” and rampant pornographic stimuli, is it any wonder that so many of our leaders have succumbed to sadomasochistic pedophilia documented by Dr. Handrahan?

So again, the question is what/when did Dr. Spanier know of Sandusky’s child sex assaults? And, how many other high-level authorities were trained by a similar sexual worldview as the football coach and the president?

Ladies and gentlemen, an investigation of Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute waits in the wings. It almost happened under President Clinton in 1995 with H.R. 2749, “The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act.” With President Trump, that window into child sex crimes as the basis of false and damaging research and education can be opened once again. Let those who believe that the truth must be revealed and all children protected gather together to join in the demand to revisit H.R. 2749!

In the controversy over bathrooms/LGBT “rights,” it is curious that companies like Dow Chemical, Alcoa and Monsanto have chosen sides (WSJ 4/18/16), along with Disney, the NBA and NFL. … The hysteria and lies from opponents of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are outrageous. … They claim “RFRA is a license to discriminate.” … RFRA is not a “license” to do anything. It is merely a defense against attempted infringement of religious rights. The bipartisan federal RFRA, co-sponsored by Sens. Kennedy and Schumer, was supported by numerous liberal and conservative organizations, including the ACLU, American Jewish Committee, National Association of Evangelicals, Baptist Joint Committee, and National Council of Churches.

In the transgender bathroom “rights” controversy, much is at stake. … No tolerance exists for anyone who disagrees with “their truth.” Must we all praise a 40-year-old cross-dressing man using the womens’ bathroom as a hero for justice while condemning a teenage girl as a hateful bigot for simply wanting her privacy and safety protected? You decide.

William Wagner, former federal judge and constitutional law professor, stated: “All states prohibit criminal sexual conduct, e.g., indecent exposure. No civil law purporting to allow such criminal activity protects a perpetrator from prosecution.” Yet, the moral high ground (funnily enough) is claimed by toxic polluters Dow, Monsanto and Alcoa. Disney’s employment of child molesters competes with the NBA and NFL’s nasty habit of shielding million-dollar brawny players who beat up women and cheat on child support. The safety of women and children is clearly not the priority of such misogynist bureaucrats. So whose tune are they dancing to? And why? As to the reality of alleged “transgender” persons, the lawyers representing the woman suing Planet Fitness did a quick search:

SAN BERNARDINO CO., Calif. (2013) – A 46-year-old man cross-dressed as a woman to gain access to a women’s dormitory and other female only facilities to take pictures of women with a cell phone hidden in his purse.

OLYMPIA, Wash. (2012) – A 45-year-old man, who self-identified as a woman, used all of the woman’s facilities at the Evergreen State College swimming pool. He exposed himself to minor girls from the local area who would use the college’s swimming pool.

PORTLAND, Ore. (2011) – A convicted sex offender for offenses against children claimed to be a transgender woman and wore a dress to access areas where young girls would change, such as locker rooms and swimming pools.

TORONTO (2014) – A man claimed to be transgender to stay at a women’s shelter where he then assaulted several women.

PALMDALE, Calif. (2013) – A 33-year-old man was charged after allegedly dressing as a woman to secretly videotape women using the restroom at Macy’s.

COLUMBUS, Ohoi (2014) – A man was claiming to be a woman to use a cell phone to take pictures of women using the restroom.

EVERETT, Wash. (2012) – A nontransgender man wore a bra and wig to gain entry to a women’s bathroom at a local community college to take pictures and admitted to using the women’s showers for sexual gratification.

BIRMINGHAM, England (2011) – A student wore a mask and wig to gain entry to a women’s bathroom to spy on women and make recordings of a sexual nature.

BERKELEY, Calif. (2010) – A man twice disguised himself as a woman to gain access to the showers of a UC Berkeley locker room to take pictures of women.

Instances of cross-dressing men invading women’s privacy illustrates how such obscene conduct threatens the survival instincts of girls and women – normal, real men know this and will protect women and girls at all cost. At this time, the rates of rape of college girls and women in “higher” education is shocking! It is just such mean-spirited men who eventually run major businesses, sports groups, banks, become entertainers and politicians, and demand that females receive all male sociopaths who “feel” they are women. Really?!

Ivy League professorial elites charged that their reputations are damaged by wrongheaded claims of a campus “rape culture.” This resulted in a Title IX federal discrimination complaint. Title IX was designed to protect women and girls from discrimination due to their sex. Now, however, Title IX is used as a sledgehammer by government bullies to enforce aggression against girls and women, forcing females to abandon safety for the benefit of aberrant transgender guys.

The “gender identity” delusion has overtaken non-discrimination policies, student codes of conduct and curriculum everywhere. This recent fraud stands on the previously nonexistent field of “sexology” and on its founder and model, Alfred Kinsey, and his revolutionary books, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” (1948) and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” (1953). Schools now teach Kinsey’s unscientific gender paradigm: biological gender, gender identity (includes transgender), gender role and sexual orientation (includes heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual), with new ones added with some degree of regularity.

The promoters of “LGBT History Month” testify that, “Alfred Kinsey is known as the father of sexology. His groundbreaking and controversial research on human sexuality profoundly influenced social and cultural values,” including, of course, gender fluidity.

Adopting “gender uncertainty” policies that permit access to vulnerable women and girls provides predators with greater access to victims. Predators can enter the private spaces of opposite-sex students without detection if they reject their birth sex or dress in opposite-sex clothing. And with the force of law protecting “transgender” students and staff, one is unlikely to report a cross-dressed person for fear of being accused of discrimination. Catch 22. Gotcha!

Remember, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights’ “PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY” reports that elementary and secondary students do mimic what they learn, becoming perpetrators. We must revisit the fallout of the obscene sexual revolution in sex ed and pornography. Was it the road to sexual liberation or the road to sexual slavery?

The loss of Justice Antonin Scalia to those who counted him as a dear friend can never be compared, of course, to the painful loss of that witty, warm and gracious man to his large and loving family. I have read the many touching memoirs written by his colleagues and determined it was time to “go public” with my own, shall I say, “covert” friendship for nearly three decades with an incomparable man on whom I had come to depend for intellectual support and confirmation of my “controversial” ideas and findings.

Justice Scalia generously gave of his time and his friendship when I faced concerted assault by the entire Washington, D.C., liberal establishment, (and, as a consequence, a goodly part of the conservative establishment as well). In 1985 my two-year research grant of $800,000 from President Reagan’s Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention was over. American University (AU) had (figuratively) thrown me out of their AU second-floor office suite, the Xerox machine after me.

“Coincidentally,” in 1986, one vocal opponent of my research, department of Psychology Chairman Dr. Elliot McGinnies, was arrested for abusing a 9-year-old in a Maryland nudist colony. Then in 1990 AU President Dr. Richard Berendzen was caught seeking sex with children of day-care mothers. He claimed he had a “4-year-old Filipino girl as a ‘sex slave’ in a basement dog cage.” Last I heard, these academic pedophiles, McGinnies and Berendzen (after a three-week Johns Hopkins cure), were still on AU’s faculty.

Birds of a feather flock together, and sex predators hire those who will keep their secrets (see brief Google search). My child-pornography research endangered Berendzen, McGinnies and how many others – hence I was an AU millstone. For similar reasons I faced an unprecedented three congressional hearings to terminate my research (April 1984, August 1984 and May 1985).

In 1992 investigative reporter Susan B. Trento published her expose of the politically powerful Gray and Company ad agency, “THE POWER HOUSE: Robert Keith Gray and the Selling of Access and Influence in Washington.” Wrote Trento: “Reisman … made a most appealing target for ‘discrediting.’ Gray and Company charged The Media Coalition between $50,000 and $75,000 per month for the campaign. … [M]uch of the cost was borne by Playboy; Penthouse also provided funding.”

So, no, my massive grant didn’t open any university doors when I knocked; administrators had all “gone fishing.” Playboy did a series on “Reisman” for almost two decades, often graced by cartoons. This is from April 1989 (one of the few that can be shown in a family newspaper). It is heartening that I won a Playboy libel lawsuit in the Netherlands in 1994 when I said Playboy deliberately published child pornography cartoons and photos since 1954.

Little did I know then (I’ll explain shortly), but Justice Scalia knew of the national press libel of me and my research (and Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler) years before we met. Our friendship effectively began Jan. 17, 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court heard a child pornography case, Massachusetts v. Oakes, argued by Attorney General James Shannon who quoted my research:

The nude or sexually explicit photographs that result from the sexual exploitation of children are also harmful in that they condone and promote a distorted view of sexuality, often by pairing the themes of sexuality and violence. For example, it has been documented that the three most widely-read, mainstream “soft-core” erotica/pornography magazines, Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler, depict children in both sexual and nonsexual ways, depict sexual and nonsexual crime and violence, and commonly pair these themes with images of adult female nudity and overt sexual activity. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Exec. summ., Pro. No. 84-JN-AX-K007 (1987) (hereinafter “Executive Summary”). n17. The principal researcher also found that children were depicted as viable targets of sexual and nonsexual abuse and as desiring adult sexual interactions. The report concluded:

[I]t appears of compelling public concern that the present research documents a contextual association of three discrete stimuli: (1) adult female nudity and graphic female sexual display, (2) neutral, sexual and violent child depictions, and (3) depictions of crime and violence. The magazine genre evidences a unified culture and world view which incorporates all three stimuli: pairing arousal to an adult sexual object with child sexualization and crime and violence. Thus it is not unlikely that some vulnerable juvenile and adult receivers may fuse child depictions with arousal to sex (genital stimulus) and/or arousal to violence (aggressive stimulus).

Executive Summary at 9-10. The findings were disturbing enough that the author of the report recommended a voluntary moratorium of child depictions by mainstream erotica/pornography publications until more data on the harm to children could be obtained and evaluated.

I thanked Attorney General Shannon after the hearing for using my study. He nodded and shook his head.

“No thanks needed. We were glad to have it.”

OK, so my research was needed in media child sex abuse cases – at the Supreme Court level! Yet so-called “conservative” lawyers accepted the liberal slander and dubbed this same research “contested.” I had to fight to get into cases, and in the few cases when my studies were allowed, we won on the facts. Meanwhile, all academic doors were closed to me. In 1983, I had been tasked to train at the new FBI behavioral science unit in Quantico, Virginia, on the impact of media on the brain and child sex abuse. Now, no conservative “think tanks” would touch me. So, no income and no grad students to extend my research. Not a good situation. Really, quite discouraging.

Allowed to join the elite attendees

Shortly after the Oakes case was won, I was being interviewed at the Free Congress (FC) studio in Washington, D.C., for their weekly TV show on the law. We were taping a special on the wide scale libel of my mainstream child pornography study quoted above by AG Shannon. FC was taping the story of that research censorship as well as my expose of fraud and child-sex atrocities in Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s paradigm-shifting “sex” books, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” (1948) and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” (1953). The interview also documented how Kinsey’s research gutted America’s protective sex laws for women and children using the American Law Institute’s new, 1955 Model Penal Code.

A conservative Justice Department lawyer had just refused to appear alongside me on the program charging, “Reisman’s research is contested, methodologically faulty.” Asked by the producer for evidence, he regurgitated the costly media slander. Without any evidence for his charges, I was permitted to fully present the truth. When I was leaving the studio, the producer mentioned that Justice Scalia was shortly to speak downstairs to a select, rather wealthy group of FC supporters.

“Gracious. Can I possibly join?” I asked.

“Well, yes, why not,” he shrugged.

It was a small group, about 25. Justice Scalia was funny, very charming. He ended with asking for questions. Respectfully, none of the invited supporters stirred. Ah well, I thought, here goes.

So, I raised my hand.

“Yes,” said the justice.

“Justice Scalia, sir,” I said, “since if the high arousal state to pornographic pictures hijacks the frontal cortex, thus cognition, thinking, judgment, planning; and since this would thereby subvert the mission of speech, if proven, would this justify ending the First Amendment ‘speech’ protections for pornography?”

My question came out in a flood!

The justice peered curiously at me, I thought. Then he nodded.

“Well, yes, of course. The laws would have to be re-evaluated considering such data. But, yes, of course, were that the case.”

“Well, I, if you don’t mind, I do have another question, sir.”

“Go on. Let’s hear it.”

“Well, if it were proven that the entire sexual revolution was based on deliberate fraud, libel of the sexual morals of the World War II generation and a cover-up of massive ‘scientific’ sex atrocities against children, could sex laws that were gutted, reduced, changed, based on that fraud, based on those crimes, be revisited, reversed, as well?”

The room was still.

“Yes,” answered the good, the wise, the just justice. “All laws are capable of revision, change, based on contrary evidence presented.”

“Thank you, sir,” I breathed. (I didn’t know it then but my life’s work was laid out before me.)

As the justice was leaving, I walked up to him and reached out to shake his hand.

“Thank you for answering my questions, Mr. Justice. My name is Judith Reisman.”

“Oh, I know you,” he fairly twinkled. “And, I know your work, Dr. Reisman. I’d like very much to see anything you have written on the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code.”

Shocked, I replied, “Great, I’ll send you my book and my draft of a law chapter.”

He nodded, smiled and turned to enter his waiting car.

So, in 1989, Justice Scalia and the Supremes had accepted my “contested” DoJ report in one of their first child pornography cases. A liberal attorney general had read to the Court from “The Reisman Report” and quoted from that study to Justice Thurgood Marshall during oral arguments. No kidding. Taking pictures of naked children could harm them! Under the circumstances, that was very gratifying to know.

Lunch in Scalia’s chambers

I sent Justice Scalia my book “Kinsey, Sex & Fraud” (1990) but hadn’t heard back, so I wrote and asked for a meeting about my media-effects-on-the-brain paper I had faxed to him. Dec. 27, 2001, when I arrived in Washington from California to visit my family, I was told a fax arrived from Scalia (still the days of faxes). He was delighted to get my brain paper and would I join him for lunch Friday the 28th – if it’s convenient. Convenient! More than that! I’ll bring my book, “‘Soft’ Porn Plays Hardball” (1991).

Friday I taxi to the court and go to the Marshall’s office. Maryellen, the justice’s secretary, comes to greet me and takes me to the justices’ chambers. She apologizes; the justice is in casual clothes. My goodness, that is just fine, I answer.

The table is already set up in his chambers, white table cloth, Supreme Court tableware. We chat. He asks where I am now. I say California – my kids made me an offer I couldn’t refuse.

“So far, all my resumes and books have not yielded an offer of a position in my profession.”

He shakes his head meaningfully and chuckles; “You were a songwriter for CBS TV’s ‘Captain Kangaroo’? That was a pretty drastic change in professions! I read that in one of the papers that trashed you. ‘Former “Captain Kangaroo” songwriter gets grant to study pornography’ or something,” he grins.

“Yes, but the culture didn’t leave me too much choice,” I smile.

“My son and his wife were in the in the bay area but gave up and moved back. It was too expensive, and they couldn’t even find a church with a priest who was a priest. It’s all over,” he says. “We’re just treading water.”

“True,” I nod. “But, I think its Mother Teresa who said, ‘We’re not called upon to be successful, we are called upon to be faithful.'” He looks at me and quietly replies:

Justice Scalia notes England’s Lords may lower the age of consent for sex.

“We already did that here in Washington, D.C.,” I say. He looks surprised, lifts his eyebrows.

“Age of consent was lowered to 16,” I continue. “So at recess a child can cross the street, engage in sodomy (always faster) for a few dollars, go next door to buy their favorite CDs and not miss class. Still get that education! A tad cynical I know, but it seems to apply,” I sigh, nibbling at my sweet and sour chicken (delicious as I recall).

Scalia is shocked, and this naturally leads to homosexual youth in the Boy Scouts.

“With all the history, it’ll be no time until they get homosexual leaders. It’s insane, but logic has no value,” says the justice.

“That’s why I’ve been studying brain functions; for evidence that ‘morality’ is a measure of health,” I say. “Kinsey was a Boy Scout. His ‘science’ convinced the Boy Scouts to cut masturbation out of the Boy Scout Code as a no-no. That was an opportunity for predators for sure,” I add. Kinsey would know that.

“What about Kinsey? He’s discredited, surely,” asks the justice.

“No, not at all. The Kinsey Institute has planned a new book on child sexuality.”

“That’s just who we need to do that. Smart,” he moans.

I say, “I’ve been shopping law journals and finally got my paper on ‘Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth’ accepted in Regent’s law journal, after it was accepted and then rejected from a ‘for and against’ in the Stanford Law Journal. Remember Herbert Wechsler’s 1952 Harvard Law Review saying we need a new Model Penal Code because there is just too much crime?” I ask.

“Of course,” he says, “a very famous article. Too much crime in 1952! Now we have more crime and newer, unheard of crimes as well. Someone ought to write a follow up to Wechsler’s essay.”

“Yes, and his Code called for age 10 for consent. Remember, Manfred Guttmacher was the chief author of the Code. Age 10! This would improve the lot for women and children! As head of GAP, the Group for the Advance of Psychiatry,” Wechsler’s buddy, Manfred Guttmacher wanted consent at age 7.

“That’s obscene,” he says. “Manfred. Is he Allen Guttmacher’s brother? Is all this in your law paper?”

“He’s Allen’s twin,” I reply. And yes, all in the law paper. Happy to share!”

Good I kept a record of our tête-à-tête. I’ve tried to stay inside the bounds of our actual conversation. We talked about pornography, and I say about 70 percent of our kids are being exposed, and about private schools and religious schools having sex education that was really traumatic for children. What about the teachers? he asks; and I say this is everywhere with teachers’ permission. I tell him about the libraries having pornography on the computer screens and how that impacts the child who views it; he is nodding, agreeing, commenting. I tell him about my experiment with the peripheral vision of children flipping speedily through ladies magazines, recalling the small dog picture 30 pages past. They capture everything that arouses their interest. I say he could try that with his own grandkids, except that the ladies magazines aren’t necessarily safe anymore. He asks, what about women, seems like there are more women into pornography. I say yes; and that is a huge risk since women are the ones closest to the children; they change the diapers, and arousal is nondiscriminatory – women are becoming part of the problem.

Sitting across from him at lunch, talking and talking, I ask, “But, what shall I call you? Justice Scalia?”

“Why not call me Nino,” he answers, kind of turning in his chair.

“Well, that’s fine,” I said. “I’m Judith.”

From then on it was Nino and Judith, except that he switched to “Judy,” both of us being old enough to go back in time. In semi-formal letters and emails I would usually address him as “Justice Scalia, Sir!”

After this kind reception, I would meet with Nino in his chambers whenever I got to Washington, on average, once or twice a year – assuming he was also in town.

I recall going over my paper on pictorial pornography, answering his questions, clarifying the charts and graphs, etc. There was the time he came into the office in shorts, having left the tennis court to make his appointment with me – ever generous, ever gracious.

We exchanged books, a few of mine for a few of his. He promised to read my books. I always doubted that he read them fully, but enough so that he could opine.

When we lost him, I had been working on a paper we had talked about and that Justice Scalia was waiting to see. The paper has a history that deserves commentary for another time. It was accepted by the Thurgood Marshall School of Law Journal on Gender, Race, and Justice, titled “Nearly 60 Years After His Death, Alfred Kinsey’s Pansexual Worldview Takes Root In Marriage Decisions” (by Judith A. Reisman and Mary E. McAlister, Esq.).

How have we reached the point that “an estimated 50,000 Americans, at any given time, are trading child sex abuse images/videos,” of infants and children being raped and tortured, i.e., child pornography?

Let’s look. Angered by the film “I Pedophile,” an incest survivor blogged recently: “Children are NOT sexual from birth” to which a reader responded by sending her a link to “It starts in the womb.” “Sexpert” Remi Newman echoes the mantra first penned by guru Dr. Alfred Kinsey in 1948 in “Sexual Behavior of the Human Male.” Kinsey claimed to have proven that children are sexual from birth based on his “scientific research,” which was in fact systematic sexual torture of infants as young as two months depicted in tables 30 to 34 on pages 175-180 of his book on males.

Elite institutions from all segments of society have built on Kinsey’s criminal, fraudulent foundation to transform the culture. Among those institutions is the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS), which published Ms. Newman’s article in its Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality. IASHS, whose “academic dean” was Kinsey co-author/lover Wardell Pomeroy, is an unaccredited storefront that has awarded more than 100,000 unaccredited degrees and certificates in “human sexuality,” “AIDS prevention,” “sex education” and similar “sexology” disciplines. Current IASHS President Rev. Ted McIlvenna says accreditation is “a bunch of crap. … They would never let me keep my … kiddie porn … library.”

Those credentialed by Pomeroy and Rev. McIlvenna’s “library” and morals now train or have trained sex educators, counselors and therapists teaching and counseling America’s children and adults.

Many are among the thousands of university professors and elementary and secondary school teachers arrested for possession of child pornography reported by Dr. Lori Handrahan’s Data4Justice.org, a crowd-sourced database of arrests chronicling our infant and child pornography epidemic.

Kinsey’s frauds have become so engrained in academia, law and the behavioral sciences that fables of “infant sexuality” are taught as truth by “sexperts” resembling Ms. Newman whose courses like, “Helping Parents Understand Infant Sexuality” are part of her stated mission to empower simpler folks “to feel more comfortable as sexual beings.”

Another sexpert Ms. Newman admires is Dr. John Money. Time quotes he and his female coauthor: “One who commits incest … is like a religious deviant in a one-religious society” – thus neatly planting the notion that opposition to incest is quite like religious intolerance.” ISAHS dean Pomeroy adds, “It is time to admit that incest need not be a perversion or a symptom of mental illness. Incest between … children and adults … can sometimes be beneficial.” “The last taboo.”

Newman’s article was a presentation given to the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS), another of the Kinseyan based “sex science” think tanks. None other than Playboy chuckled in 1996 at the SSSS conference attendees, asked to refrain from, at least:

“nasty, hostile remarks about women (and men);”

“joking about ones sexual orientation;”

“belittling ‘asexual prudes’;”

“making nipple, a–, crotch comments;”

“kissing, stroking, hugging, or persuing a sexual advance that was rebuffed;”

“revealing a colleagues’ sexual act in public,” etc.

These are the deviants (yes!) and their organizations, which create the school sex education curricula to indoctrinate the teachers who then teach allegedly “medically accurate” sex information. Unfortunately, as Dr. Handrahan documents, in too many cases IASHS and SSSS “trained” teachers practice what they teach – on their students and other children. A recent prominent example from our neighbor to the north is Dr. Benjamin Levin, former deputy education minister in Ontario. Levin developed the province’s current sex education curriculum before being convicted and sent to prison for possessing and creating child pornography.

After all, if people believe children are sexual from – or before birth – that can justify children being tricked, forced into sex acts, particularly having been sexually groomed in our nation’s schoolrooms.

Unfortunately, until the poisonous root of Kinsey’s frauds, his sex crimes against infants and children and the sex education edifice built upon it are fully known, eradicated and replaced by the Judeo-Christian roots upon which our society was built, the pandemic of sexual violence against our children will continue its upward spiral.

In May 2012, it was reported by Worldcrunch: “Following Barack Obama’s surprise public support for gay marriage, incoming French President François Hollande may be poised to push through legislation to give same-sex couples in France the right for the first time to marry.”

Well, the plans for homosexual marriage met with massive French opposition from the French people, and it looks like gender re-education has taken a major hit as well. I just received this announcement from Farida Belghoul, leader of the French resistance movement to the homosexual agenda:

Despite recent LGBT lobby groups [opposing] the announcement of the possible removal of the “ABCD of Equality” program, the government, through its Minister of National Education, Benoît Hamon, announced its final decision: He abandons the ABCD. Already, the intervention of LGBT activists planned for the autumn in schools are erased from the schedule.

Tribute to the popular areas that have suffered for this victory! Tribute to Mothers of France! JRE Cheers! Cheers to the Islamic-Catholic convergence! Cheers [to] all the forces of the nation fighting to save the modesty and integrity of children.

Tribute to the rare priests – Fathers Blin and Horovitz, Father Pagès, Abbé Tanouarn. Thanks to the Imam Rahhaoui and rare others who have supported us. Tribute to local committees and alternative media. …

JRE movement won this first battle without ever appealing for donations. It is the victory of men and women of integrity and selflessness. So be it … and God be praised!

In April, we wanted to wish Christians a Happy Easter. The time has come to wish Muslims a good month of Ramadan.

Background to the victory

Deutsche Welle reported earlier this year: “A French government program aimed to combat gender stereotyping among primary school children is facing an unprecedented backlash from parents. Parents in France are pulling their children out of class for one day each month to protest against what they say is an attempt by the government to teach primary school children that ‘they aren’t born boys or girls, but neutral.'”

Farida Belghoul, from Strasbourg, created a calendar in Journées de retrait de l’école (days of withdrawal from school) in which she assigned different days for the school boycott. With little or no support or exposure from the mainstream media, Belghoul relied mainly on text messaging. She called on parents to “resist” the government’s ABCD of Equality program, which was planned for primary schools.

Some 100 schools in Strasbourg and the Paris region reported losing up to a third of their pupils. The claim that the gender program was merely geared to equality between boys and girls was seen as a cover for promoting varied strains of homosexuality.

Belghoul calls the program indoctrination, saying the aim of the government’s project is “to generalize gender ideology at every level of French schooling, from the kindergarten to the baccalaureat (final exam).

“At a moment when pupils are struggling to master basic arithmetic, the government considers it a priority to fight homophobia and stereotypes of all sorts,” she added.

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves.” – Matthew 10:16

Ira Reiss, a sociologist and professor emeritus at Minnesota University, was a charter member of Alfred Kinsey’s Sex Cult. His papers, articles, and audio and video recordings already are housed at the Kinsey Institute, 57 years of his work so far. Reiss, like other Kinsey disciples, advocated the production of pornography and its display for “training” purposes to prepare students entering the new sexuality fields spawned by Kinsey’s supposed revelations on sex. Kinsey gleefully promoted this type of material, which during the late ’60s started to be called Sexuality Attitude Restructuring (later renamed Reassessment), or SAR, sessions.

These training sessions are promoted as sexual desensitization seminars, pornographic extravaganzas of all manner of enthusiastic sexual activities presented to groups of men and women as training to become certified therapists, counselors, educators or researchers. In addition to desensitizing sexologists to the images of heterosexual activities, sado-masochism, group sex, sodomy, the use of sex “toys” and homosexual behavior, the sex leaders also hold small group discussions to explore the participants’ attitudes and biases in order to neutralize any “negative” views.

But the stated purpose of these sessions is not the whole story, or even the real story.

Early on, these sessions were not used to merely desensitize and encourage acceptance of all sex acts but as indoctrination into a “sex positive” mindset. (Such training has been a requirement for certification by the American Association of Sex Educators Counselors and Therapists, or AASECT, from the beginning.) SAR leaders also often pressured participants into sexual experimentation with each other.

Reiss revealed this in his book, “An Insider’s View of Sexual Science since Kinsey,” recounting his experience at an eight-day SAR session in San Francisco in 1972. At the time, Reiss already was a professor at the University of Minnesota where its medical school was one the first in the country to offer SAR training to medical students. But it was a new, untested program.

The director of U of M’s SAR program had secured a grant from the Playboy Foundation to send 25 couples from the University, all expenses paid, to San Francisco to receive training from the group that had followed on Kinsey’s practices, the National Sex Forum (aka the National Sex and Drug Forum). The purpose was to improve the programming at Minnesota. Reiss and wife were among the volunteers for the Playboy-sponsored training of future national sex educators. Reiss reports:

“The view presented by many of the staff was supportive of people trying out the full variety of sexual acts that exist (S and M, gay, extramarital, group sex, etc.). The supposed purpose was to allow people to break through their old restrictive sexual attitudes. I had no objection to offering such options. However, as they elaborated, it became clear that this support of broad experimentation was more than just permission giving – it was presented as a demand to experiment.”

When Reiss resisted, the SAR leaders ridiculed him, one of them saying, “Are you hostile to group sex or gay sex, and is that why [you are] so cautious about trying something new? Are you biased?”

Reiss did not object to the activity. Rather, he objected to demanding it. It should be promoted, not required, according to Reiss. Such promoting, demanding and encouraging of freewheeling sexual libertinism SAR trainers have been doing for over 40 years now.

While AASECT requires SAR training as an element in their certification standards, the Kinsey Institute is still involved, and Planned Parenthood has joined in. SAR trainings are regularly available now.

Mentally and emotionally corrupted graduates of the SAR training become the “experts” who design sex-ed courses and teach our children. Thus, they have “determined” that the anus is a “genital” as it is described in the currently used sex education program in Hawaii, that orgies are natural entertainment, that sex addiction is a myth, that addiction to pornography is not possible, that it’s normal for children of any age to have sex and that they have the right to choose whatever sexual activity they may think to try with whomever they want, and that sodomy (legalized by the Supreme Court in 2003) is a healthy sexual practice for all sexual orientations.

The whole purpose of these “sex positive” programs is not to liberate adults from their Victorian moral prisons but to indoctrinate children into an unrestrained, sexually available lifestyle. Even if such “programs” are not being taught in all schools yet, this material has been made available on multiple websites and are widely promoted to all, regardless of age. The Kinsey Institute, SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, AASECT and others all provide, or recommend, sites that extoll the virtues of unrestrained sexual experimentation.

Is it any wonder that youthful STDs, pregnancies, abortions and abuse are pandemic?

Which brings us to one of the big lies spread by these organizations: safe/safer sex.

Typical of schools throughout the country, the Minnesota AIDS Project experts (SAR graduates) tell youngsters they can cut and use plastic wrap as a “barrier” when a child has oral/anal contact.

What?

To make matters worse, many of these groups have for years been spreading the false advertising that condoms and dental dams are FDA approved for such bizarre and damaging use. They are not. (See my recent column, “Condoms never FDA-approved for sodomy.”)

Do “condoms” and homemade barriers give the protection Planned Parenthood and other groups claim? Or do these groups promote their use merely as cover for the real purpose – to hypersexualize younger and younger children, groom them and leave them increasingly vulnerable to disease, death and sexual abuse by peers and adults?

Isn’t it time we start holding these groups legally accountable for knowingly spreading their junk science? Let us hear from you if you are among the millions who have been harmed by their “grooming” lies.

A class action lawsuit by AIDS victims and their loved ones would rock the world – a suit based on the fact that condom pushers have for years dispensed false, deceptive claims about how the product protects – or fails to protect – the health of sex participants. The reality is that everyday condoms are manufactured and approved for natural, vaginal sex, not anal “sex” – they are not effectively designed to protect from disease those people who engage in sodomy.

Such a lawsuit should target the AIDS Heathcare Foundation, Planned Parenthood and a myriad of teachers and school systems, too many to count, that have taught that anal “sex” (traditionally termed “sodomy” or “buggery” under British-based legal codes) as not so different than natural coitus.

The result of a class action suit should be the requirement of a label, a la cigarette packs, that states: “This condom has never been approved by the FDA for penile/anal intercourse.”

Due to the lies that have told, people who practiced sodomy are under the tragically mistaken notion that a condom is effective protection from disease. Those who have believed this lie and have contracted AIDS or an STD (and the loved ones of those who’ve lost their lives) have a cause of legal action.

Take the Hawaii public schools, for instance. Republican Bob McDermott, a member of the Hawaii House of Representatives, cited a “federally funded sex education program currently in use in 12 of the state’s public schools … created by the University of Hawaii and Planned Parenthood … [that] defines the anus a ‘genital.'”

According to a report McDermott authored, the curriculum, dubbed “The Pono Choices,” defines the term “oral sex” to include “mouth on genitalia,” with the anus included among “genitalia.”

McDermott points out that the curriculum states: “Both vaginal sex with a condom and anal sex with a condom are rated as low risk activities.”

The school program, more aptly named “Porno Choices,” diverges wildly from what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration studies have found regarding penile-rectal anal “sex.” In fact, the FDA, even after looking at AIDS studies for roughly 40 years, has NEVER – that is never, not ever – approved a condom for use in oral/anal or penile-rectal anal “sex.”

McDermott notes: “The Federal Drug Administration warns Americans, on its website, that anal sex is ‘simply too dangerous to practice.'” Pono Choices has received nearly $1 million in federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Advertisements for experimental anal condoms affirm that standard condoms were never tested or approved by the FDA. The ad reads:

“The standard rolled latex condoms have never been ‘tested or FDA approved for anal use.'”

To reach the market, the Origami Anal Condom must be reviewed by the World Health Organization, the C-Mark (EU) and the FDA to meet safety standards. After clinical trials this year to evaluate its performance and safety, it is expected to reach the market in late 2015, pending regulatory approvals.

The “CDC National AIDS Hotline Training Bulletin” dated April 27, 1995, contained the following from Consumer Reports magazine:

“Some condom boxes specifically indicate they are designed for vaginal sex only. Are they not effective for anal sex? Which condoms should be used for anal sex?

“For the most part, FDA has only evaluated data on condoms tested in vaginal sex. There have been several published studies and surveys which indicate condom breakage and slippage rates may be higher during anal sex. However, these studies are only retrospective. Whatever the breakage rate, it may be reduced by use of a water-based or silicone- based lubricant.”

“Whatever the breakage rate”?! The Hawaii public schools’ recommendation of a prophylactic for activity for which it is not designed, without warning children that it is unreliable for protection, is shocking.

Even the CDC fact sheet does not warn that the condom is unapproved as safe for anal “sex,” but groups the activity with vaginal and oral sex.

Planned Parenthood implicitly and explicitly has promoted anal “sex” to children and adults for years.

“If you choose to have vaginal or anal intercourse, use condoms every time. They can reduce the risk of HPV. They are not as effective against HPV as they are against other infections such as chlamydia and HIV. But they greatly reduce the risk of HPV infection. …”

Parents in Hawaii should well remember those responsible for giving their children false information about protection from STDs and AIDS. If their children acquire deadly diseases as a result of this propaganda and the deliberate withholding of key information, not only should Hawaiian school districts be sued, but everyone in the Hawaiin schools who had a hand in disseminating this false information.

]]>http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/condoms-never-fda-approved-for-sodomy/feed/0Boy Scouts as pederastic cotton candyhttp://www.wnd.com/2013/05/boy-scouts-as-pederastic-cotton-candy/
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/boy-scouts-as-pederastic-cotton-candy/#respondTue, 28 May 2013 23:47:59 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=444967My Liberty University Law School colleague Matt Barber wrote in a recent WND column:

“It’s only a matter of time until BSA … admit[s] ‘gay’ men. … [T]hey’ve waived the only legal defense they once had: religious and moral conviction.”

Well, I am outraged!

Where are our Men to defend our children? Where are Men whose ridicule, public contempt – fists and the like – often controlled those male cowards who abused and exploited children?

Where are the Men eradicating pornography?!

The recent Boy Scout betrayal is a glaring example of the growing impotence of masculine virtue and honor. And please, don’t take refuge by blaming “the feminist movement.”

Really!

Juvenile boy molesters

It is estimated that in the United States, juveniles are responsible for up to one-fifth of all rapes and up to one half of all cases of child molestation committed each year (CSOM, 1999).

Juveniles are 36 percent of all sex offenders who victimize children. Seven out of eight are at least 12 years old, and 93 percent are boys (Crimes Against Children Research Center, UNH, 2010).

On May 23, a real Man, Chuck Peters, of Voice of the Voiceless (“the only anti-defamation league for former homosexuals, individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions, and their families”), having been a young sexually violated Scout himself, charged:

Youths commonly heed adult ideas and mark themselves accordingly (I’m stupid, clumsy, ugly, or even brilliant or wise!). However, adults are meant to help vulnerable youths grow, learn and become who they are meant to be – years hence.

Now, bigger and/or more manipulative lads, with cell phones and other pornography resources stirring their sinews, will greedily entrap any and all boys who seem easy prey.

“Boy Scout” is defined in Gay Speak, the homophile lexicon:

“Boy-scout queen: (sexually experimenting boy scouts who fear giving a response); one who pretends to snooze as he is f–-ed or s–-ed off, ‘sugar loaf,’ ‘sugar babe,’ etc., bees to the honey!”

I sanitized the text for you.

What cowards to pretend ignorance of the massive history of Boy Scout molestations!

Eroticize the campsite and you eroticize boys to one another and to their leaders. “Gay Scoutmasters” will arrive soon to “help” “their” lads, to train and encourage them – to believe they are naturally “that way.”

The “I just knew I was different since I was 5 years old” mantra.

Sure.

I’ve written often of the pedo-Kinsey lies – that 10 percent to 37 percent of males are sometime homosexual. But even Kinsey didn’t use the born “gay” myth. He just rated homosexuality higher in his pantheon of “specials.”

By July 2000, “Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement – Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics, A NIBRS Statistical Report” found “14 percent of sex assault victims … under age 6.”

Juvenile males were 15 percent of the victims of sexual assault with an object, 20 percent of the victims of forcible fondling and 59 percent of the victims of forcible sodomy.

Of course, that won’t happen in the dark of night on a Scouting campout.

Forcible sodomy of the younger boys, those under age 12, was 64 percent!

But, of course, that won’t happen in the dark of night on a Scouting campout.

Well, no, based on the hard data, yes, it will.

However, my colleague, Matt Barber tells us “the good news.” He says:

“I and dozens more will be convening for a coalition meeting of pro-family leaders next month in Louisville, Ky., to discuss the creation of a moral alternative to the Boy Scouts. Nature abhors a vacuum. We intend to fill it.”

I anticipate that this gathering of Men will become a real leadership force of future Boy Scouts Defending America.